141–150 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some info on my Hackaday project listing: https://hackaday.io/project/190478-hyepaper Also the album link in the other comment.
What was the total costs of the components?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some info on my Hackaday project listing: https://hackaday.io/project/190478-hyepaper Also the album link in the other comment.
This is quite an achievement. I really like the curation and the process to make it a front-page. You automated your own editorial news. Love it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's a 4k TV it also has more pixels and better refresh rate. And color. But for that extra $2360 you get the feature that your image is still there when the power is off. I expect that feature would be substantially more costly regardless of the patent holder's extra.
> you get the feature that your image is still there when the power is off How is that a realistic feature? Who is losing power and being happy that they spent a few thousand more, nearly 40x, than a 36" photo quality print, just so the image can remain while their lights are off?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I thought there was some revolutionary coating I missed out on... I actually have a M2 MacBook Pro and a Pixel 7, both of which get decently bright, but neither of which is really usable under direct glare. And in XDR mode, the SDR colors get super washed out. HDR is a gimmick as far as I can tell. I'd trade either for a usable transflective display or a regular matte screen from early 2000s Dell. I don't think t…
What you described is EDR: where non HDR content is artificially limited to allow HDR content to contrast better. In sunlight the screen will stay in SDR and use HDR brightness levels without any tweaks, which doesn't result in washing anything out > That's liking shining a flashlight into your eyes so the sun doesn't seem as bright... ... that's exactly the point of e-Ink: with minimal power you get brightness that…
What do you mean by this? Are you saying the Macbook has a special display mode that only activates when it detects sunlight (as in lumens? or?)?
> With infinitely efficient OLEDs, we'd just crank the brightness on the lit pixels high enough to match the brightness of a white piece of paper in sunlight and have a better e-ink: unfortunately in the real world that'd generate more heat and take more power than mobile devices can afford right now.
Are you talking about the contrast ratio? I meant more that high brightness with a direct light source into the eyes can be pretty uncomfortable compared to reflected diffuse sunlight. If there's a way to get the contrast of LEDs to a similar readability of paper & e-ink without needing to blast my eyes, that'd be great. The few OLED displays I've used seem to have that more of that effect (still not as nice as e-ink), but I don't have a monitor that size either.
> At the end of the day we have both matte and glossy displays with reflective characteristics that rival old school matte displays because of improvements made across the stack... but nostalgia makes us assume things were very different than they were.
Like what? Are you saying my current Macbook is actually more readable in sunlight than old matte displays, I just don't realize it...? If so, hmm, I'm dubious but I will take it out again and try to compare it again without nostalgia, as much as I can. Or is there an objective measure of sunlight readability I can refer to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I don’t understand - why are the iPhone screens that can run in display mode run at 1hz a feature - what’s hard about driving a display typically driven at 120hz(?) at 1hz to save on power difficult? Or it’s not and the it’s a differentiating feature price.
Is the refresh really a big power draw vs the backlight or even the pixels themselves? I think the thing about e-ink is that it's a chemical producing/retaining the pigment, rather than a light source. So even when it's off, it retains its current colors. When a LED is off, it's just... nothing. But you still have a point. Even if a LED display has "only" a 2 or 3 day battery life, that's still pretty huge to mere ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure the ad-driven subsidy on TVs plays a huge part. TV prices have declined as “dumb” TVs have been phased out of the market. A more niche tool like a large e-ink display might not make as much sense from to price this way since ad systems need large networks of users to be relevant.
As a check against this, I looked for 42" computer monitors, which don't display ads. There are $600 4k 42" monitors in stock at CDW, for example. The same size 4k SmartTVs are about $300. So, yes... there appears to be about a 50% discount for TVs vs Computer Displays, part of which could be a subsidy, most of which I suspect is volume driving down the cost of production.
Well done. There would be so many more cool applications of e-ink if it wasn't $2,500 for a 42" display: https://shopkits.eink.com/en/product/detail/42''MonochromeeP... (minimum order 3) For comparison a 42" full-color 60fps TV with remote, speakers, wifi, etc. etc. is $140. It seems like the patent holder could be making a lot more money if they dropped the price.
>For comparison a 42" full-color 60fps TV with remote, speakers, wifi, etc. etc. is $140. Because it's a lot easier and cheaper to manufacture large LCD panels at scale than E-ink film. >It seems like the patent holder could be making a lot more money if they dropped the price. I don't know any company or shareholders that would say no to making more money so if this would actually be true then it would, but that's n…
That is to say, it’s not that they’re charging high prices out of greed, but that there’s no competition forcing prices down.
Got excited, but then you qualified it was AI. AI art is not generative art, it is reductive "art". It requires samples of the art style you wish to cop, and it always produces something artificial and less than the sum of its parts. On the other hand, generative art is procedural, and represents the thought process of a human being. Better luck making meaning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you described is EDR: where non HDR content is artificially limited to allow HDR content to contrast better. In sunlight the screen will stay in SDR and use HDR brightness levels without any tweaks, which doesn't result in washing anything out > That's liking shining a flashlight into your eyes so the sun doesn't seem as bright... ... that's exactly the point of e-Ink: with minimal power you get brightness that…
> What you described is EDR: where non HDR content is artificially limited to allow HDR content to contrast better. In sunlight the screen will stay in SDR and use HDR brightness levels without any tweaks, which doesn't result in washing anything out What do you mean by this? Are you saying the Macbook has a special display mode that only activates when it detects sunlight (as in lumens? or?)? > With infinitely effic…
Yes, if automatic brightness is on, the screen will exceed its standard SDR range in daylight, just like the iPhone. Otherwise you need special software to manually increase the SDR brightness into that higher range, maxing out at 1600 nits.
> I meant more that high brightness with a direct light source into the eyes can be pretty uncomfortable compared to reflected diffuse sunlight
The discomfort would come from a mismatch in brightness: a 2000 nit screen sounds incredibly painful to look at because in normal conditions your pupils are adjusted to an indoor room and you're looking at a 2,000 nit screen, which is terrible.
But ambient light on a clear day is something like 30,000 nits, so your pupils are already significantly narrowed: a "mere" 2000 nit screen will still look kind of dim if anything.
e-Ink sits around 40%-50% reflectivity and still looks fine in those conditions.
(Blue light, contrast, and the nature of the reflections themselves also play a role so it's not as simple as "more nits is better", but you need to be in a certain ballpark of brightness to even play, which is why I'm saying old devices aren't in the running here.)
_
> Like what? Are you saying my current Macbook is actually more readable in sunlight than old matte displays, I just don't realize it...? If so, hmm, I'm dubious but I will take it out again and try to compare it again without nostalgia, as much as I can. Or is there an objective measure of sunlight readability I can refer to?
It's hard to capture in a single measure because there's two parts to the equation:
- reflections from the surface
- being bright enough for your eyes to make out details at all
Back in the day the brightness would be roughly equal for both a glossy and a matte option, so matte would be strictly better.
Now brightness has advanced enough that a newer glossy panel + modern anti-glare coating + modern bonding techniques are. enough to overcome the difference in reflections vs the old screens.
You should look at even the glossy non-Retina (which was almost universally hated) vs the glossy Retina to see how dramatic the changes in anti-glare tech were at some points in the last decade: https://cdtobie.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/reduced-reflectance...
A modern matte screen would have the advantage if it had the same brightness, but afaik no one actually makes a matte screen that gets as bright as the new XDR Macbooks do: the closest are all glossy displays too.